Why do employers count operations towards periods of absence

Legacy_user

When the operation will irradiate or reduce the employee's future time off work? Or make them to perform more tasks, be more flexible over hours. As some conditions may restrict them working after a certain time or be on their feet for longer

Employers should encourage this if an employee has had a history of being off sick for a certain condition or same symptoms.

A friend is having her gallbladder removed next month and had already had 3 periods of sick in 5-6 months. Her employer counts each one separately, even though she had the same symptoms each time. Already got a warning. It will be the 2nd warning when she comes back to work early in the New Year.

I had my gallbladder removed 3 years ago - though had my bile duct removed 3.5 weeks later, I had no symptoms or trouble 3 weeks after op 2. It will be the same for my friend.

Has no trade union and been with her employer for 6 years. Other times she was sick was 2 years ago with a S&D bug going round the company and a severe cold 10 months later.

keithdc

Why?
- Because the employer has a policy that it applies consistently to all staff that are unable to work due to sickness, whether that sickness is planned or unplanned.

custardy

ScarletMarble wrote: »

When the operation will irradiate or reduce the employee's future time off work? Or make them to perform more tasks, be more flexible over hours. As some conditions may restrict them working after a certain time or be on their feet for longer

Employers should encourage this if an employee has had a history of being off sick for a certain condition or same symptoms.

A friend is having her gallbladder removed next month and had already had 3 periods of sick in 5-6 months. Her employer counts each one separately, even though she had the same symptoms each time. Already got a warning. It will be the 2nd warning when she comes back to work early in the New Year.

I had my gallbladder removed 3 years ago - though had my bile duct removed 3.5 weeks later, I had no symptoms or trouble 3 weeks after op 2. It will be the same for my friend.

Has no trade union and been with her employer for 6 years. Other times she was sick was 2 years ago with a S&D bug going round the company and a severe cold 10 months later.

Why not? Is a flu less worthy than an operation?
By your argument the operation will eradicate the issue,so they wont fall fowl of the attendance process again.
You arent seeing the big picture. Somebody triggers 3 absences in 6 months with the same condition. So their health and attendance are an issue.

sangie595

ScarletMarble wrote: »

When the operation will irradiate or reduce the employee's future time off work? Or make them to perform more tasks, be more flexible over hours. As some conditions may restrict them working after a certain time or be on their feet for longer

Employers should encourage this if an employee has had a history of being off sick for a certain condition or same symptoms.

A friend is having her gallbladder removed next month and had already had 3 periods of sick in 5-6 months. Her employer counts each one separately, even though she had the same symptoms each time. Already got a warning. It will be the 2nd warning when she comes back to work early in the New Year.

I had my gallbladder removed 3 years ago - though had my bile duct removed 3.5 weeks later, I had no symptoms or trouble 3 weeks after op 2. It will be the same for my friend.

Has no trade union and been with her employer for 6 years. Other times she was sick was 2 years ago with a S&D bug going round the company and a severe cold 10 months later.

Because, like it or not, absence is absence. Nobody brings sickness on themselves, so whatever the reason someone is off sick, they are still off sick, and there is mo good or fair reason to rank certain types of sickness over other types of sickness. There may be some concessions permitted if the sickness is a result of a disability in law; but apart from this exception, if the employer decides to treat people differently then their entire policy becomes unlawful and cannot hold.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that periods of sickness link, or should link, if they are caused by the same condition. They don't, and that would patently be stupid - by that notion, provided someone has the same sickness every time they could be off work for two years in 26 months and still only be off once.

If someone's health restricts them from working certain hours or doing certain tasks, this can be noted on the sick note. The employer can then, if they are able, offer adjustments to the working environment or times. If they cannot or will not, the person is then off sick because they are not capable of doing the job they are employed to do.

Why are these policies in place and why do they operate so strictly? In large, because of people abusing the sickness procedures. In the past, employers were not forced by law to pay people who were off work sick. And employers generally knew who was swinging the lead and who was genuinely (or rarely) sick. They could therefore, if they wished to, retain people who were sick on the books until they were better, and it didn't cost them anything to do that. Then the law changed and most employers had to pay sick pay themselves - they all do now. They still knew who was swinging the lead though. But when they let those people go, keeping the people they deemed genuine, they ended up in tribunals for unfair dismissal. So the law set down that everyone must be treated equally. So employers are treating everyone equally. It's another case of the few making life harder for the majority.

I don't know about you, but I easily recall the days when some people never turned up to work on Friday - paid Thursday so the drinking started and they were always too hung over by Friday. Or people with occupational sick pay who treated it as alternative holiday, and made sure they claimed their full "entitlement" of sick leave every year.

In the end, employers pay people to work. That is all they want from them. If people aren't going to be in work, then what use are they to the employer? That may seem harsh - but that is what employers are. They run a business and not a charity.

System

She has been under so much stress with this - which probably caused the last two periods of sickness. Many days, she struggles through the day with the pain and discomfort. Then comes home crying with the pain. I was the same.

Only times she rang in sick is when she has been vomiting.

sangie595

ScarletMarble wrote: »

She has been under so much stress with this - which probably caused the last two periods of sickness. Many days, she struggles through the day with the pain and discomfort. Then comes home crying with the pain. I was the same.

Only times she rang in sick is when she has been vomiting.

I'm sorry, but what difference do you think that makes? She is still off sick.

I have spent the last six+ months in excruciating pain and on morphine that only barely dulled the pain. When I was "off sick" I was still sick.

bouicca21

My (small) organisation had a higher than average level of sick days off per year. That was all down to a single individual, whose imaginary illnesses were legendary. I had less time off for cancer. Once that individual left the sickness rate fell to well below average. How I wish the boss had had the balls to deal with it by introducing a fair but firm sickness policy.

Sadly the genuinely ill are disadvantaged by those taking advantage of the system.

PasturesNew

It counts because it is an absence.

Each person's history of absences will then be compared against what the company feels is appropriate/correct/reasonable against their requirements as a business to have enough staff employed/working to satisfy customer requirements and business needs.

It doesn't mean it would necessarily count against you, but there has to be "one system" of recording that's consistent.

beecher2

It does sound a bit unfair to have a second warning for something which is treating the cause of the first warning. I think it should be counted as a period of absence, but shouldn't trigger a warning. Hopefully the company will see this when they speak to her, could she speak to her line manager about her worries?

PixelPound

So, did she not tell her employer in advance? Ask what alternative routes there were e.g. holiday or unpaid leave?
As it is, maybe she should ask for a doctors letter so that when she goes back to work, can ask HR to put it on her file. If it triggers an employment review then they may be willing to take the letter into consideration.

There is no set rule, but it may be taken into account.

nimbo

I've had planned surgery counted as part of the anscences. Because I was absent from the office. However it didn't trigger any warnings as it was planned etc. I still had a back to work interview. My boss was really supportive.

I hope your friend has a speedy recovery.